German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish While browsing the help section of the program, if you are solving according to TDY 97 or 2007, it says choose the mod combination method. 1. Does the analysis with the response spectrum not meet the earthquake code requirements? 2.Is the response spectrum method a more sensitive analysis method than modal analysis? Or is it the opposite?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Opinions questions about using ideCAD Static 7
- Thread starter Ismail Hakki Besler
- Start date
Response Spectrum == Modal Analysis==Mod Combination method all three are the same..."proisa":w3gqj8ea" said:While browsing the help section of the program, it says choose the mode combining method if you are solving according to TDY 97 or 2007. 1. Does the analysis with the response spectrum not meet the earthquake code requirements? 2.Response spectrum method according to the modal analysis Is it a more sensitive analysis method or vice versa?
I sent a mail to [email protected] I haven't received a reply yet. Is there a problem with the address?
hello i have a static project homework i have some knowledge of how to draw it i draw reinforcements like column.beam.ax but there is an analysis I guess i don't know how to do it this analysis just draws one solid then it removes all the layouts automatically if you help me i looked at the videos on the idecatn site but something like this No, I would appreciate your help, thanks in advance.
Dear expert friends and İdeyapı technical service: There is no column at the broken intersection where the inclined beams form ridges, but rest on 3 columns with inclined beams, the section of which is seen in the extension. I had difficulties in modeling the inclined beams of this system and the inclined floors between the inclined beams. What kind of a support the column-free broken point, which is the ridge, will be accepted as a support or whether the beams supported to each other on the left and right sides will be accepted as a single beam from column to column. I could not get out of it. I would appreciate it if you could draw a short model in ide 7. I would like to thank the interested friends and ideyapı technical service in advance.
YasinTezel
Member
Hello. You can use the "Bevel Objects" command in the Flooring toolbar to model the roof. I recommend you to examine the deformations after analyzing the model. You can see the connection problems in the displacements. The sample project is attached."katibimin":jgwg3qo7" said:Dear experts and technical service of İdeyapı: There are no columns at the broken intersection where the inclined beams form the ridge, which sit on 3 columns with inclined beams seen in the extension. I had a hard time. How will the column-free broken point, which is the ridge, be accepted as a support, or whether the beams supported by each other on the left and right sides will be considered as a single beam from column to column. I would like to thank the interested friends and ideyapı technical service in advance.
We already know that modal analysis is done in both. The difference is due to CQC or elemental analysis, but my questions are still valid..."curious":11shv09q" said:Response Spectrum == Modal Analysis==Mod Combination method, all three are the same thing..."proisa":11shv09q" said:While browsing the help section of the program, it says, if you are solving according to TDY 97 or 2007, choose the mod combination method. 1. Does the analysis with the response spectrum not meet the earthquake code requirements? 2.Is the response spectrum method a more sensitive analysis method than modal analysis? Or is it the other way around?
HakanŞahin
Administrator
The text there was written only when the equivalent earthquake load method and mode combining method were present in the dialog, reaction spectrum was added to the dialog later, so the text is not valid for the response spectrum. The text will be changed."proisa":29ypldgd" said:While browsing the help section of the program, it says, if you are solving according to TDY 97 or 2007, choose the mode combining method.
HakanŞahin
Administrator
Re: idecad 8 steel
"KUBA2009":13tlr9q2" said:As the forum is locked, I am adding it here. Is there a demo of version 8 or something, I haven't found it yet
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Re: idecad 8 steel
ONLY THERE IS A BROCHURE. I WRITE THAT THERE IS DEMO WATER. WE WAITING FOR YOUR INTEREST.."HakanŞahin":wvnama39" said:"KUBA2009":wvnama39" said:I am adding it here because the forum is locked. Is there a demo of version 8 or something, I haven't found it yetYou do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
DOUBLE REINFORCEMENT ERROR IN FLOOR I CANNOT RECOVER GROUND FLOOR D2 AND D4 FLOORING FROM INSUFFICIENT REINFORCEMENT AND DOUBLE REINFORCEMENT FAILURE IN THE ANNEXED PROJECT. BUT THERE IS NO BENEFITS DÖŞEME VEDEHAZİ D1, DÖVERTÖDÖDÜ. ERROR MESSAGE wILL SEE WHY GIVE'm a KIND BULAMADIM.AYRI by REPORTS RECEIVED by A1 and B2 DISORDER DENIED BUT OKs rated seems CONTROL AUTHORITIES WANT INFORMATION ABOUT nOT bEING DOING THIS iS PROVIDED aND iS MINOR, ALSO HEAP PRİNTER oF REPORT on SCHEMATIC OBJECTS in DRAWING WRITING yOU WANT tO READ to the OUTPUT ISSUES wITH INTERESTED to thank you in advance .. ...
Levent Özpak
New Member
Re: DOUBLE REINFORCEMENT ERROR ON FLOOR
*Networks are not formed correctly in the slab analysis in the project. The floors no. D12-14-24 are seated on the panel objects on the 5A axis given the negative upper level. *A1 and B2 type Irregularities are irregularities that affect the selector of the Calculation Method. When dynamic analysis is performed These irregularities are irrelevant. TDY 2007 item 2.3.2.1 and item 2.6.1 *The purpose of the schematic drawings in the Accounts Report is to give information about the general shape of the structure. As the size of the structure increases, the texts become smaller as each floor is drawn to fit on one page. Note: It would be appropriate to enter the upper rigid basement floor number -1 in the project. Good work"my clerk":1dm612pm" said:IN THE ATTACHED PROJECT, I DIDN'T RECOVER THE FLOOR FLOOR D2 AND D4 FLOORING FROM INSUFFICIENT REINFORCEMENT AND DOUBLE REINFORCEMENT ERROR1, I DIDN'T RECOVER ANY KIND. D23 and D24 in SLAB ERROR-FREE SOLUTION VERİYOR.HAT the wHERE AND I GIVE REASONS THIS ERROR MESSAGE wILL SEE a KIND BULAMADIM.AYRI by REPORTS RECEIVED by A1 and B2 DISORDER DENIED BUT OKs rated seems CONTROL AUTHORITIES WANT INFORMATION ABOUT nOT bEING DOING THIS iS PROVIDED AND iS MINOR, ALSO HEAP OBJECTS on REPORT in the schematic drawings WANTS TO READ THEIR ARTICLES ON THE PRINTER OUTPUT THANKS TO THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT.....
I have questions that I encountered in the solution of a simple industrial structure (basement + ground + mezzanine): 1- When I solved the ground group C structure with the superstructure interactive, taking into account the raft foundation existing in a part of the foundation, the floor and the column connected to the beam, which I gave the upper level on the top floor, were unusual. pursantage comes out. When I solve the superstructure without interaction, this problem disappears. Why am I getting an offset error on the column on the top floor, not the column connected to the foundation? 2- When we enter the Cross Section and Reinforcement Tolerance ( - ) value in the analysis settings, does it allow us to stay on the more reliable side of our project apart from the economy?
Levent Özpak
New Member
Superstructure interactive solution may affect the analysis results of the whole structure If you add the project, we can examine whether there is a problem with data entry."illaga":1gu5pxas" said:I have questions that I encountered in solving a simple industrial structure (basement+ground+mezzanine): 1- When I solve the floor group C structure with the superstructure interactive, taking into account the raft foundation existing in a part of the foundation, the top floor The column connected to the slab and beam, which I have given the upper level, has unusual pursantage. When I solve the superstructure without interaction, this problem disappears. Why do I get an offset error on the column on the top floor, not on the column connected to the foundation?
"illaga":1gu5pxas" said:2-When we enter a value for the Section and Reinforcement Tolerance ( - ) in the analysis settings, does it make our project more reliable than the economy?[/ quote] Section and reinforcement tolerance lines are not designed for negative values. It does not keep you in the safe direction.
"Levent Özpak":cg3w1p0r" said:The superstructure interactive solution may affect the analysis results of the entire structure. If you add the project, we can examine if there is a problem with the data entry."illaga":cg3w1p0r" said:I have questions for a simple industrial structure (basement+ground+mezzanine) solution: When I solve the building with group C interactively, the floor and the column connected to the beam on the top floor, which I gave the upper level, unusual pursantan. When I solve the superstructure without interaction, this problem disappears. Why am I getting an offset error on the column on the top floor, not the column connected to the foundation?The file is attached Mr. Levent. I also had another question. In systems with floor level, should we give our columns an upper level or do we connect them to the column on the upper floor?"illaga":cg3w1p0r" said:2-When we enter a value for the Section and Reinforcement Tolerance ( - ) in the Analysis settings, does it make our project stay on the safer side outside of the economy?
The basic data entries in the project you sent are wrong. To give a few examples: TK1, TK2, TK10,11,12 TK20,21,22 etc. It can be seen that a column or a wall does not press on either the right or left supports of your foundation beams. Although it looks like it is connected to the column when looking at the plan, you can detect that it is not connected to the column as a result of the analysis. When you look at the report results, you will see that one of the right and left support names is empty. I haven't followed the topic too far, but if I were you, I would delete this basic system and redesign it. You do not have to connect the tk21 and tk38 foundations to the elevator system. Also, instead of a continuous foundation piece by piece, I think it would be better if you detach it from the system and define a simple raft under the coulters. On the other hand, a continuous foundation can be defined under the long curtains (I think the groove of the ramp and the curtain next to it) instead of a raft. It is also recommended to review the warnings in the geometry control. Some beams appear slightly wider than columns. In my opinion, if the beams are to be of this width, it would be correct to enlarge the columns by 10 cm each."illaga":fafhr2f3" said:The file is attached, Mr. Levent. Also, I had one more question. In systems with floor level, is it to give our columns an upper level or to connect them to the column on the upper floor?"Levent Özpak":fafhr2f3" said:The superstructure interactive solution may affect the analysis results of the whole structure. If you add the project, we can examine whether there is a problem with data entry."illaga":fafhr2f3" said:I have questions for a simple industrial structure (basement+ground+mezzanine) solution: 1- Taking into account the raft foundation existing in a part of the foundation, when I solve the structure with ground group C with the superstructure interactive, an unusual price rises in the column connected to the floor and beam on the top floor. This problem disappears when I solve the superstructure without interaction. I'm getting a purchase error in the column on the top floor?Section and reinforcement tolerance lines are not designed for negative values. It does not ensure that you stay in a safe direction."illaga":fafhr2f3" said:2-In the analysis settings When we enter a value for Section and Reinforcement Tolerance ( - ), does it make our project stay on the safer side, apart from being economical?
As for your question about the floor level: Slabs If the beams are surrounded by beams, if the beams touch the floor level, it is not correct to play with the columns. If the beams surrounding the floors are also different from the entered floor level, it will be correct to bring the ends of the columns to the beam ends. Please check the picture and the project file I have attached. I think it will be a reference. , column end elevations (bottom - top), beam elevations, curtain top and bottom elevations, floor and floor elevations I think you can understand what I mean more easily."illaga":196zdchd" said:The file is attached Mr. Levent. I would also have another question. In systems with floor level, should we give our columns a top level or connect them to the column on the upper floor?
I am also using 7.022. But I save and attach the same file again as 7.018."illaga":bmnxyqp3" said:NYILMAZ, thank you for your answers and suggestions. What I want to ask is the situation on the vertical 12 axis. I could not open the file you sent because it gave an incompatible file version error. I am using 7.022